BTRFTG

21 hours ago, The Original OTIB said:

Will BTR return to pay his respects? Been away a while.

My first hero.

A Colossus in my eyes, evermore to remain as such.

Odd to now realise one I thought so mature was, at the time, a mere whippersnapper.

Rooks commitment and endeavour personified all there was to love about football. Football a sport, not business. A player who respected those who paid to watch him play and in doing so was respected in return. Not one player in the current squad fit to lace his boots, not they'd know how to with their featherweight slip-ons and scant, passing acquaintance with traits such as honesty and graft.

Semenyo's 1 in 9  record doesn't lie and last night's performance was as per. His first four touches were all miscontrolled and things didn't improve afterwards. Easily marshalled and muscled off the ball, like Weimann, Scott and Sykes he's forever looking to the officials for help neither deserved nor awarded. Given the decent chances that came his way he again squandered them high and wide, adjusting socks and boots afterwards attempting to shift blame to his equipment. His second half run into the box, left to right toward (his) right hand post to meet good quality, pacy ball in from the right -  any striker has two options: inside of right foot/outside of left. Semenyo, in choosing the inside of his left foot served only to send the ball back in the direction from whence it came. Such judgement is why he's a 1 in 9. Like Weimann, for somebody who supposedly puts a shift in, he's as lazy as hell in getting himself back into an onside position. Of Weimann, last night he was wholly anonymous save for his usual first minute argument with the referee (who appeared to put him in his place,)  and his glaring misses, albeit one if not both were miles offside. City struggle to retain possession as it is so its highly frustrating to cede dead ball simply because players can't be arsed to get and stay onside.

Whatever anybody offers for Semenyo (should they be silly enough to make an offer,) we should take it for simple reason he's sub-Championship material.

As all decent folks would, I wish him well in his recovery and recuperation.

51 minutes ago, Harry said:

Just find it interesting that a team can be so proficient at closing out a game. 

Or in City's case not remotely proficient....

I think that's why City fans have a issue with teams who are.

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I do agree that football is different now to how it was 100 years ago. Of course it is, everything else is as well. However I don't believe that should stop us a) trying to stop it degrading further or b) trying to change things. If you believe in the status quo (as it is, because doing nothing will only allow further development towards money and away from fans and tradition) then that is your prerogative. I am going to do what little I can to help change things.

Merry Christmas.

And the best of Season's Greetings to you, fellow supporter...

I very much miss tradition but as there are no longer cold, Boxing Day terraces on which to stand with mates (a tradition removed by so-called football supporters themselves, so much for engagement,) replacing the long trek with the Long Walk Hurdle and match on TV, in front of fire and enjoyed with quaff wouldn't be considered backwards progress in some quarters. Personally, I'd love to see football and its money expunged from television (and in doing so football itself,) if you want to see a game then go to it with football funded through supporters. But that's pure fantasy.

On 20/12/2022 at 00:17, Harry said:

In the last 20 minutes of normal time, the ball was in play for 8 minutes and 50 seconds. 
There was 5 minutes added, but in total he added 6 mins 20 seconds. 
Of that 6:20, the ball was in play for 1 minute 50. 
 

In total, the final 26 mins 20 seconds of play, only 10 mins 40 seconds were actually played. 40% in play, 60% dead. 
 

Alex Neill really knows how to close a game doesn’t he! Helped along of course by refereeing ineptitude. 
 

Again we love to blame the officials but as Disraeli reminded statistics aren't always to be trusted. In an average football match the ball is in play for just over an hour. Its in play longer in the first half than second. Segment by 5 minute periods and, unsurprisingly, the ball remains in play less the later the game progresses. Note neither Law 15 nor 16 state the maximum time allowed for play to restart. 15 secs is standard but officials tend not to act until its double that.

So of the 4 1/2 minutes lost in additional time it only requires 9 incidents to occur; foul, throw-in, corner, goal kick or substitution, which is pretty much par for the course as gamblers in those markets will attest.

And whilst we might look to blame Stoke the likes of Semenyo, Sykes & Weimann didn't exactly do their best to control and keep the ball in play.

The only thing to take from that article is VAR MUST be scrapped.

So they reviewed many hundreds of incidents only to discover the officials erred on a dozen occasions. Half when (and despite all the technology,) they incorrectly made a decision, balanced by half where they should have acted yet didn't. 

13 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Long post again, so I'm just going to pick out a couple of points.

Absolutely not. Millions of companies up and down the country, indeed around the world, have directors that are not shareholders. There is no legal requirement under the CA 2006 for a director to hold a single share in a company that they manage. It is absolutely feasible that a football club could, and indeed should, have a director who does not own shares in the company. Any fan, ex-pro, or other appointed director would naturally be subject to the same legal and fiduciary duties as a 'normal' director, and so they would have liability - so far as the corporate veil permits - for "liabilities and undertakings". As an aside the FLR does address this - and it is one of the reasons they actually recommend shadow boards rather than true fan directors.

However, they still also recommend NEDs be appointed as part of the regulation - perhaps I mistakenly conflated the two earlier.

I general I think you are echoing Lansdown's fear of those who are inexperienced 'meddling' in the economics of the Club. That isn't what a "golden share" - ie the fan share ownership that the FLR recommends - is about. Such a share would have no economic rights or benefits. Liability would be limited to par value. The shareholder would have very clearly defined voting rights - and you can look at Brentford's articles of association for an example of that. 

On Brentford, you are not the only person in this conversation to have an inside track on that. I have spoken at length to the lawyer that drafted those articles about how he drafted them, and how they have worked since. His tale is similar to yours, that yes some serendipity came into play. However he provided the added detail that the "Special Share" worked in that it forced the Board to talk to and involve the supporters trust - Bees United - at an early stage of the process. In doing so the board were able to explain why the stadium needed to be below the 20,000 capacity specified in the articles. The Special Share created a dialogue between owners, developers, and fans, and so avoided messy scenes where an unconsulted fanbase might have disagreed with a decision.

Finally, on a club like Arsenal...yes if I had a magic wand I would whisk them back down to Woolwich. However the FLR is realistic as well as optimistic and so I suspect "heritage" would be fixed at the point of the issue of the licence.

The sum total of which appears to be that we agree the best run businesses have extensive stakeholder engagement, yet disagree that nothing has been demonstrated as to why football requires regulation? If it does, I'd argue that extends only so far as trying to bring a degree of normalcy back its business model and that wouldn't last two seconds in the courts, if implemented. It would likely have fans up in arms as the best thing to happen would be for a raft of clubs to go bust, quickly, thus forcing football and player, fans and owners demands into a major restructure. The very fact the review is focused on the league element (not grassroots) shows its essentially a protectionist agenda. Let's keep what we've always had the way we've had it. Why? The horse has bolted. Fans need to stop conflating today's football with that of yore, they're wholly unrelated.

If fans choose to invest their emotion in businesses that's up to them, but football is not an exception and it doesn't give them a mandate to call shots they're not prepared to fund. Fans can either pay for that they unreasonably demand else, as they are free to do, walk away and invest their energies elsewhere.

On 17/12/2022 at 23:53, BigAl&Toby said:

No @Davefevs

Yawn. Here he goes again. How about you @BTRFTG You enjoy the game?

As you ask we'd say we're glad we didn't bother to drive down simply to fill our paid for seats and there were one or two positive passages of play first half, save overall the game was further example of the squad we have not being good enough (and that includes some who folks think superstars in the making and who, God willing, some mugs will offer stupid money for during the upcoming window.) We again conceded two unnecessary, wholly avoidable goals. But we do that most weeks so presume those on the park either don't consider them unavoidable else lack talent to influence the game. (To the quick, it's the latter.)

Folks love to blame the officials, who weren't great , but weren't that bad and were not the reason we lost. I'm sure Stoke fans rate them awful too for allowing the likes of  Weimann, Scott & Semenyo to remain on the park despite their non-stop cheating.

Funny old game....

On 18/12/2022 at 04:47, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I mostly agree but one fundamental change that has caused huge problems for people is the widespread availability of easy credit.

Wonga loans, Klarna and credit cards to buy takeaway food, payday loans, and doorstep lenders for the desperate.

This has made people's financial situations messy, difficult and even out of their control.

When I was a skint student there was no credit and the grant was at a subsistence level, I had to save up for months to buy a new pair of jeans to replace my knackered ones. If I could have just bunged them on a credit card then I would have done but banks in those days did not give impecunious students credit cards.

That meant that I graduated with no debts, whereas someone graduating today will be graduating with £60k of debt, being charged sky high interest rates on that, and paying an extra 9% tax.

To pick up on the daps example without credit I would have bought the ones from the Co-op bargain range because that's all I could afford. I wasn't being virtuous.

 

We have become inured to substantial levels of debt as being the norm and I regard this as a horrendous societal change.

Exactly.

I could relate some very telling truths about the 'banking crisis' and why it arose in the way it did. Its decades before the paperwork is no longer embargoed but future generations will learn how bankers (boo, hiss,) cautioned governments (boo, hiss,) to reign in unsustainable cheap credit but were firmly put in their place by the likes of Blair who ensured, should the banks attempt to stop the feel-good factor he demanded, his government would flood the market with cheap money.

On my estate as a kid there was no 'credit', only the cautioned against 'Never, Never.' Named for the simple reason you'll never own it nor ever stop paying for it. As with your jeans, my folks and their peers insisted you wanted something, you waited, saved, and only then bought it. The so called 'necessities' of modern life, private vehicles, holidays, multimedia entertainment & communications devices were rare as as rocking-horse for the simple reason they weren't necessary at all. You had them once you could afford them and only then.

Folks today love to conflate criticism of the present welfare state and alleged poorest with attacks on the poor. I was brought up to support those in need. The young, infirm and elderly UNABLE to help themselves. I still hold that to be true today. That's a million miles from supporting those for whom state sponsorship is seen as a rightful lifestyle. Its for that reason I fully support a new class of citizen, my kids, their kids and just about anybody under the age of 40. Why the hell should they be burdened with others ever-increasing, unsustainable debts simply because we've areas of this nation where multiple generations have never worked nor have any inclination of working. Not taking personal responsibility, no thought for others, the 'what's in it for me' generations.

There's also the biggie few talk about. The amount of money 'lost' by 'the poorest' to the darker side of the economy. On my estate there was one bloke who dabbled in drugs. If he came into the boozer he was given a royal kicking. If you wanted drugs you went into town. Last time I was there (for a wake,) there were underage girls (some grandchildren of kids I'd grown up with,) offering all sorts of 'services' (sic) around the back of the same boozer for next to nothing. All to service their and their 'boyfriends' habits. Plenty of unemployed blokes in the bar with pocketfuls of folding the likes usually reserved only for racecourses. But I'm also old enough to have known the acquaintance of plenty of addicts, many now dead, who would have attested addiction is nothing like that folks now love to describe. That of an unavoidable, lifestyle. You have to work bloody hard to become an addict, its not something you fall into overnight, by chance. And for that reason there is, inevitably, a degree of personal responsibility to be taken. But I'm a man out of time and few think personal responsibility and social duty merit worthy traits these days.

On 17/12/2022 at 18:22, joe jordans teeth said:

Hear hear,you have to take into consideration this country is full of wet wipes now and will continue to be so until they really hit hard times ,imagine these lot having to have a dump outside in a building what wasn’t joined to their house 

Frozen over in winter to boot. 

On 16/12/2022 at 09:30, SecretSam said:

That's politics, not economics. There is a concept in economics called 'market failure', which is where the market fails to provide appropriately for all consumers - which is why we need government to correct it by restructuring the market (eg increasing taxes, raising benefits, wages, etc). If we have food banks, that's because of the market failing and govt not correcting it.

Don't blame economics for the failures of policy.

Or perchance personal failing? If folks who had less in my youth didn't go hungry why are they hungry now? I could cite dozens of examples, but these days its easier to point fingers of blame, easier to conflate that one demands one needs with that one actually needs. Go apply your 'market failure' theory to the rank of shops where I grew up. Odd the cheap and basic suppliers of my youth were replaced by expensive "value added' suppliers. They were replaced because largely potless punters demanded them. No longer buying spuds by the sack, rather spending half as much on one bag of chips. As a kid food & shelter took precedence over private transport, telecommunications, consumer goods & holidays. Daps were cheap, black and without branded logo, the latter of no functional consequence. Not so that witnessed in BS13 food bank queues these days. 

On 16/12/2022 at 11:51, ExiledAjax said:

Ok, so the place I come from is that football is an industry unlike any other for two main reasons.

Firstly football is an industry in which you cannot buy out your competitors, and you do not 'win' if your competitors all cease to exist. Football, as with other league sports, is an industry in which sustainable competition is the only way in which your club, or if you are the owner your company, continues to improve and grow. Even the top clubs benefit from lower league clubs scouting and developing young talent that they then buy at a later stage. Thus, it is in the interest of every football club to have a balance between competing with their rivals, and ensuring that their rivals are sustainable. Currently there is clearly not enough support coming from the monied top of the pyramid to the more modest clubs below. Assets and talent are being concentrated at the top, and we are seeing an increase in clubs lower down the pyramid seriously struggling to survive.

Secondly football clubs are businesses that have a fixed geographical and community tie. They cannot move location and satisfy their fans - just look at MK Dons/Wimbledon for evidence of that. When they die, a part of that city or town dies as well. A part of the fabric of the nation dies. Call that sentimental if you like, but I believe that sentimentality has a place in our world if it is for the preservation of culturally and historically important assets that are crucial to the happiness and wellbeing of many communities. As such fans are key stakeholders in their clubs, but currently very rarely have any legal representation or say in the management or running of said club.

You say that fans should only have a legal say if they put their money in. Firstly, I disagree, and secondly, many fans spend thousands of pounds each year, often representing a significant percentage of their income, on following their club. Just because they do not receive any equity securities in the club in return does not make them any less important. As an aside, I would like fans to receive equity securities as part of their season ticket, but that is a different discussion.

Independent from the shareholders. This is a common requirement in other regulated industries such as the financial markets, where companies listed on the stock exchange must have a certain number of non-executive directors independent of the shareholders. Take our own club, currently the directors of the holding company are Jon Lansdown and Gavin Marshall. Respectively the shareholder's son and mate. Now they may do very well in fulfilling their duty as directors to run the business in the interests of the shareholders, but they have no legal duty to act in the interests of the fans - who are also key stakeholders.

As to your complaints about diversity - this is not about appointing a black, one-armed, gay dwarf to the board of every football club. It is explicitly about clubs "...recruit[ing] and engag[ing] people with appropriate diversity, independence, skills, experience and knowledge to take effective decisions that further the organisation’s goals". So it's more than box-ticking and it is not about pleasing Guardianistas and Channel 4 - it is exactly about what you mention - merit and competence. Why do we not have an ex-player as a non-executive director on the board of our club? The women's team does have this, but the men's team company and the holding company does not. Is there really no fan who has the expertise and time to act as a NED? I say there is, but our owner wants 100% control over the company, and is scared of challengers and alternate views.

Agreed, the regulator would not be concerned with facilities as those are already taken care of. This is about the level of regulation that each club is subject to as it progresses up the leagues. The proposal is that there would three tiers of licence. An A Licence would apply to clubs in the Premier League and Championship, a B Licence to League 1 and 2, and a C Licence to those in the top division of the National League. The Review clearly states that the concept here is that:

"...clubs will be required to improve their governance as they progress up divisions. In order to avoid placing an undue burden upon clubs in the often short period between promotion being achieved and a new season, an appropriate transition period should be allowed for clubs as they progress. However, once a club is operating at a higher tier of governance the burden of continued compliance is minimal. It is therefore recommended that the requirements operate with a ‘ratchet’, in that once a club complies with a higher governance tier they should continue to be required to operate at that tier regardless of the division in which they play."

Again, this is clearly set out in the Review, and will no doubt be addressed in the White Paper. Go and read it.

Also, look at Brentford and their new stadium for a clear example of how legal protections around heritage assets do not necessarily preclude ownership from making commercial decisions.

I defer to my learned friend @Mr Popodopolous who could perhaps summarise the current issues with the provision of financial information and enforcement.

Ultimately you clearly agree with some at the Premier League that the Companies Act, related common law and statute is sufficient to allow football to regulate itself within that framework. I personally very strongly disagree with that because I think football clubs are important and that a standard Ltd company does not sufficiently allow all stakeholders to partake in their management and governance.

Long post so I'll just highlight a few points of debate:

'Football is different as you can't buy out your competitors...' : Domestically with EPPP whilst one cannot buy a competing entity one may buy all the talented resource that might allow that entity to compete and through such starvation deplete competition. Matters not the uncompetitive entities themselves took monies to remove competition. Internationally, 'City Group' demonstates how international competition is made less competitive and how such advantage may he used to remove competition domestically. You later acknowledge this point suggesting 'big clubs' use 'smaller clubs' to source talent. Whilst they may do so under the present status quo, they don't need to.

Tangentially we're agreed on your second point about fixed geographic location, though I think you are incorrect in suggesting clubs or businesses forever hold fixed locations. As I highlighted, its fans who hold power and if they don't accept clubs/businesses moving, the name and reputation never relocates though the club/business might (says he forever a Cleveland Brown.) NB there are plenty of football clubs in existence who've crossed significant geographic Rubicons, two on my own doorstep in respect of Arsenal & Millwall. Should 'heritage' place them back from whence they came?

Independence: fans have/had an opportunity to put monies where their mouths are, but don't (see York City again this week.) If one demands a say in the legal running of an entity, in managing its risk and liability, in its legal operation, one MUST be prepared to underwrite that responsibility, IN FULL. Non-shareholding fans CHOOSE to pay to support their clubs, hence are important stakeholders. But those fans may walk away tomorrow, without care or liability and that costs them nothing, unlike those for whom the bills will still have to be paid. NB City fans cover less than 20% of annual running costs. In recent years fans of other clubs, though subscriptions, grants and transfer fees they've helped fund have contributed more to City than City's own supporters. What stakeholder value should they be assigned - greater than City's own fans?

In respect of diversity why should an ex-player be on the board? What might they know of business? There are plenty of examples of clubs who've successfully appointed ex-players to boards. Mostly they've been appointed having made something of themselves in business or political debate. They've been appointed on merit, not because they once played football. I forget the stats about the percentage of ex-pros going bankrupt once their careers are over, save its a very high number. Is it for the best those who can't run their own lives run clubs, or at least until bankruptcy disbars them? Should reglation mandate such folly? There are City fans who are already very successful, high-profile NEDs & board directors (I sit next to one such each week,) but you forget the problem with football is were they to bring their skills and acumen to the footballing boardroom their natural instinct, to protect shareholders, suppliers, and wider stakeholders, would be to pretty much shut up shop immediately. City exist because of the loophole that SL has agreed to lose £750k each week which football allows him to convert to stock and which, ultimately, will be written off. If he or his kind weren't in absolute control and were I appointed to City's board tomorrow, my first duty as director (as legally obligated,)  would be to push for the non-viable business to enter administration.

It's interesting you believe a supposed 'independent' regulator would have no commercial say, yet, de facto, the proposal to increase regulation the higher the licence holder's league status ( and with it turnover and capital resource,) appears at odds. If you took money out of the equation what footballing difference Man City and Bradford City? Wouldn't they be one and the same, historic clubs, fans, safety requirements et al? What is the additional regulation unless its linked to power generated from £ signs?

Heritage assets, still no suggestion as to what they are and when they should be baselined? Your Brentford example is interesting. As previous, I spent an entertaining afternoon with one of their board members (himself a very successful sports administrator, businessman, NED et al.) As he explained at the time (the ground was yet to be completed,) Brentford needed improved facilities to survive and were sitting on a valuable asset, prime for redevelopment with which the local authority were very supportive. Their problem, whilst they weren't against moving farther afield, was finding a site. Land, such as that they were selling, was at a premium and wasn't best placed to gain necessary permissions as residents (as City discovered,) don't want football stadia in their locale. Brentford ended up where they are because the searches conducted showed it was the only affordable plot of land with local planning support available. The Board themselves, like most casual observers, first concluded ' you'll never squeeze a stadium in there', then when shown one could it followed, 'but you'll never get crowds into and from that space safely.' It took several iterations to show what could be made to work, all of which were sub-optimal to what they wanted, but was the only option open to them. Heritage and location, as you define,  were chance benefits.

I've no issue with stakeholders being given statutory powers, provided they also accept statutory liabilities and undertakings. You can't have one without the other. Through regulation that isn't on the cards.

1 hour ago, SecretSam said:

How to say you don't understand economics, without saying it

I'd counter those who understand economics aren't in massive debt, or need of food banks or shelter because they know how to manage things for themselves. Must be I was lucky enough to grow up in an era and area full of economics experts, for despite BS13 residents not having a proverbial to proverbial in no kid I grew up with went hungry, nor undressed, nor without a roof over their head. Odd that, given 50 years ago residents comparatively had less disposable income than their equivalent today.

If this nation is 'wealthy', as you say, how come so many claim to be needy and why does the government have to bail out many tens of millions who claim to be struggling with the basics? How come its infrastructure and public services are falling apart despite tax take being at historically high levels? 

1 hour ago, semblar said:

it isn't faux green credentials for everyone driving an EV - for me I got mine through a salary sacrifice scheme, so the current tax incentives mean it was cheaper for me than a petrol or diesel car in terms of the net monthly cost in my pay packet...then cheaper running costs (about 5p a mile in summer, 8p or so with the heating on right now). Any perceived green benefit is a bonus, I made the choice on money in my pocket, nothing more. Sounds like where you live is a pain in the rear end when it comes to trying to cut your energy bills.

As i've said to others who find a season ticket isn't being used enough, maybe consider downgrading to membership? At least when you do want to get to a game you get it cheaper and there is still a level of priority for a big cup match or (dreaming now) playoff fixture

The problem with emotive issues such as sustainability is folks are prone to cite the benefits whilst conveniently ignoring that which diminishes their argument. Clearly, fewer damaging emissions emerge from EVs than from petrol cars, but that has to be discounted by emissions arising from production and distribution of electricity. Not simply volume based, but EV damaging emissions in production are considerably greater than for conventional vehicles. There's also emerging evidence that lifespan of batteries and EV components are far shorter than for conventional vehicles. Then there's the biggie. Very few EVs, in particular their batteries, are recycled for reason that's a very expensive, energy consuming process. They're landfill, so have a massive polluting impact, if not immediate carbon footprint, which is ignored. You'll often see the manufacturers and green groups publish data that's based on comparatively short lifecycles (4 years is common,) as this gets around the built in senescence of EV. They'll also claim guff such as 92% of EU citizens have access to 100% renewable charging (as if renewable power is separately distributed.) EVs are more expensive upfront, charging point installations can be expensive and without common standards may need to be changed with the car (needless and inefficient.) 

So I use the term 'faux green' and will explain why. As Estates Director for a government agency sustainability reporting fell under my remit. Talk about have to pull the wool to suit ministerial agenda. Under one harebrained scheme I opened 68 offices around the UK. One was Objective One, EU funded. Brand new, never occupied, pride of the local Green(ish) Authority, geothermally and solar powered. I fitted it out. Although it had the lowest power consumption of any of the 68 offices, it had by far the highest functional carbon footprint. How? Well the geothermal and solar interfaces never worked for more than a day or so at a time. The engineer (I think there only was one specialist,) attended on a monthly rota when called out as they were based in Aberdeen (the office was in Cornwall.) Spares, (required each visit but only once the problem was identified the previous month) came from all over the globe. So in addition to maintaining an unusable office I had to source alternate, temporary, inefficient accommodation for staffs and public elsewhere. After a year we walked away, writing off the very expensive install, picking up huge dilapidations, and having to fit-out a replacement, conventionally powered office nearby.  

Immediate 'in pocket' saving similarly isn't necessarily as advantageous as might first appear (that's why employers offer such schemes.) One assumes you've a leased EV through salary sacrifice. If so, I'd expect the term of the lease for renewal to be shorter than one might otherwise keep a vehicle if purchased. Like anything that's leased you'll keep getting upgrades but lifecycle like-for-like is likely to be far more expensive than buy, keep and use until its no longer functional. (My kids laugh at my 'ancient' if now ultra cheap to run mobile.) As for salary sacrifice: any benefit has to be discounted by losses in respect of future pay increases, employer pension contributions, sick or redundancy pay et al.

It isn't as cut and dried as is often cited.

On 19/04/2022 at 07:21, Never to the dark side said:

Four of this seasons midweek away games could have been done in less that two hours,and also get back using public transport(the train of course)

Do keep up, stop being so BS3centric and don't just limit it to midweek.

Several 'away' train fixtures were driven this year (despite having purchased train tickets) - read the press and you'll understand why. Get back to London by train post a midweek at AG, not if you don't wish to leave halfway through the second half. Many of those 'two hour' trips fail to account for 'ground to station' far end, nor arriving back at TM when there's no option other than to call Danny Devito. Neither Brum nor Luton are what I'd call 'adjacent' stations.

But in answer to your question: midweeks should be decided not by distance but by quality of boozer.  In which case Luton's forever midweek.

23 minutes ago, RedRock said:

…. support the planners. The desecration caused by insensitive developers/property owners to our historic built and natural environment is obscene. 

If we can get a man on the moon, we can get an internal electric car recharger cable holder that doesn’t look like a friggin oversized illuminated hose reel. 

Here in Greenwich planners approve all sorts of hideous eyesores (usually accompanied by brown envelopes,) yet are wholly unsympathetic to folks attempting to make modern use of unremarkable buildings that are of little or no importance. My gaff is a fine example of as bog-standard a late 1920s terrace as one might source, but because of its individual foibles (constructed by a noted local builder,) it's location between 17th C coach houses, Corbusier & FLW copies and brutalist 60's modernism, all on a 'country lane', its 'group eclectic aesthetic' is not for amending in their eyes. Not even when they attempt to cajole me into installing solar under their Borough wide sustainability procurement.

Great, where do I sign up?

Oh, you live where? Sorry, you can't apply on that road.

48 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Personally, watching City means being at the match, for me. Don't especially enjoy watching it on TV and it's the whole match day experience that I like. (Although I'll admit I question that myself watching a fairly tedious second half at Rotherham with my toes freezing off).

The other plus of your watching it at home that you haven't mentioned is you'll be able to get that Tesla - and not have to worry about where you recharge it. 

Wholly agree about being at the game, but there's no longer anything remotely enjoyable about a matchday experience spent largely in gridlock, visiting a City that hates visitors and, of late, seemingly starring in Trains, Planes & Automobiles just to get there. Even a couple of hours with mates in the boozer doesn't compensate for the grief endured. 

On a positive note, I don't have to pretend to show faux, green credentials by driving an EV. Not travelling is as green as it gets. NB: should I ever get an EV, the local planners in this 'heritage' conservation area aren't approving of external charging points, as they aren't of solar panels, solar hot water systems, energy efficient glazing, thermal cladding, external condensers or anything that might detract from the bucolic vista of the inner-city horse access on which I live. Now't so two-faced as planners 

20 hours ago, SecretSam said:

It's 2022. It's pathetic that a wealthy nation like ours relies on charity to keep people warm 

Wealth, odd concept. Debt is easier to understand, its that owing to be repaid. 

Every man, woman and child in the UK is indebted to the Government to the tune of £38,500 and rising.

Every man, woman and child in the UK is indebted to cover future public sector pension liabilities to the tune of £30,800 and rising.

Every man, woman and child in the UK is indebted to cover EXISTING public sector PPP/PFI off book liabilities to the tune of £2,800.

Excluding student loans, the average person in the UK is personally indebted to the tune of £33,400 and rising.

So the average UK citizen has unpaid liabilities in excess of £105k. Whilst some have assets to cover their indebtedness the majority do not. My kids and their kids will be expected to carry the burden of debt repayment. Were we truly 'wealthy' I'm not sure we'd be that indebted nor hang that millstone around the necks of future generations.

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I never understand what the deal is with heated seats. My hands and feet get cold in a cold car, not my arse!

Totally agree. My other half & kids love the things. I'd ban them. Lost count of the number of times I'm 10 minutes into a drive when focus shifts to why I'm sensing a sweaty arse coming on, only to realise she's left the heated seat option on.

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

It does depend what car you have. Tesla are industry leading and I don’t recognise any of the issues you mention at all. 

Not I'd ever spend that much on a car but in respect of 'long distance' I was pointed at The Tesla X, apparently their 'long range' car has the greatest range available of any standard EVs. My mate who knows about such things and (locally) drives a Tesla said to go for the cheapest (sic), most basic in the range and it is pretty basic having removed power and energy hungry niceties, not that's reflected in the price. That's 'advertised' as doing 333 miles between charges, which wouldn't get me AG and back. He cautioned that, 'real world' don't look to push it beyond 275 miles without charge. He also cautioned the small print in Tesla's contracts (remind you never own the battery or software,) re how the car should be driven and recharged. All metrics are transferred back to Tesla and should the car/battery fail they'll quickly look at the extent to which you've ignored the warnings they've placed in correct use of their product. I know non EV manufacturers do similar but they've less scope than EVs to act.

20 hours ago, phantom said:

Let's be honest if you wanted to watch the games on TV it is very easily done now, there are those that are happy to watch on TV but equally those that prefer to go to the actual games

Nothing new in comparing to purchasing a season card

I'm not one for breaking the law and, yes, things have changed.  Saturday 3pm fixtures on Sky for starters.

Start of the season we buy STs because that's pretty much the only way (supposedly) we can watch matches. Money banked the club moves games and announces games for broadcast. It used to be the odd game each season, its now more than half those games purchased.

Folks will do as they like but this mugs had enough and won't renew. I know, too, that's the the thin end of the wedge, of losing interest as quite a few games done in recent years I wouldn't have bothered had I not already had a ticket. Of interest to City is our empty seats in the Dolman next term won't be paid for, nor able to be announced as attendees. Its become a standing joke this year, it'll get worse next.

13 hours ago, reddoh said:

I have driven to the south of spain and back with no problems

Care to share how long it took, though God only knows who'd bother to drive to the south of Spain?

I do know there isn't an electric vehicle for sale in The UK that, if driven to the manufacturers recommendation,  would get us from home to AG and back without recharge, allowing us to use lights, radio, heater, or sat nav. I know because I've extensively researched when considering changing my car. To note the bits the manufacturers don't promote - try not to fully charge and discharge the battery (some recommend no more than 80 % charge,) try to avoid 'supercharging' as that degrades the battery every time, performance stats being based on low voltage trickle charging.

As it already takes us the best part of 4 hours each way another hour spent trying to find a charging point/waiting is a problem. Its hard enough finding a parking spot near AG let alone finding one with a charging point, because their aren't anywhere near enough. Friends who do drive electric cars, mostly only near their homes, are full of cautionary tales as to the 'charge neurosis' they suffer when power reserves dip below 50% given many charging points are either not for their vehicle type (how daft not to have a common standard,) or charging points ine located being out of action. Most EVs where I live direct toward my nearest charging point within 1.5 miles. The fact its a 4 mile, 50 minute journey, through 24/7 nose to tail traffic, through one of the business road tunnels in the country, a tunnel that will soon incur a toll (oh, and that's regularly closed for maintenance,) I'm not so sure I'd have confidence in believing what the gizmos telling me.

EVs have a use, but long distance travel isn't one of them.

1 hour ago, James54De said:

First Point: The rapid development of battery technology renders your point completely invalid. Currently most battery’s are Lithium Ion, in the future who knows. Solid State batteries are supposedly the next big thing, giving longer life and immensely quick recharging times. Point being, we are at the end of development when it comes to petrol, we have barely scratched the surface of battery development and there are opportunities being explored in their thousands right now. 

Second Point: Yes, EV’s are only as good as the energy source of the electric. However over the past year 34% of British power production has be renewable, 17% nuclear and 42% gas, all far (very far) cleaner than our inefficient petrol or diesel engines. 

Batteries all work on the same principle, the only variant being the chemical composition of cathode, anode and substance acting as electrolyte. We know the elements in the periodic table, their properties and their availability. We also know there is no magic cure to producing compact, powerful, efficient and SAFE batteries. There will likely be marginal improvements, but nothing to reliably power long distance, fast, cold weather energy hungry transport even to the point at which carbons become too expensive to use. 

As I type 62% of UK power generation is fossil, renewables just over 10%.  If you're charging your electric car now its pie in the sky to think alternate sources are able to provide, notwithstanding 13% of UK electricity is at present being imported.

On 02/12/2022 at 17:45, Barrs Court Red said:

Absolutely love my electric car.  It absolutely destroys all comers from a standing start at lights. 
 

what it doesn’t do well though, is motorway driving - you’ll get about 60% of the advertised range.  That’s a big issue, and I would imagine range will double each generation of vehicle. 

Batteries don't work like that. To increase range you'd need more batteries, heavier weight, less space, deceased efficiency. There's also the major problem that there aren't enough precious metals on the planet to create all the batteries required to power private transport, nor charging infrastructure to support them.

Electric cars, like their diesel & petrol counterparts are hugely damaging to the planet, the difference with electric being the damage released is at distance to the vehicle itself, but out of sight - out of mind, eh?  As with all the 'carbon offset' crap, there isn't sufficient capacity to trap CO2, plant trees or whatever harebrained scheme folks propose. Folks pollute as normal and salve their consciences by paying  levies that do precisely Sweet FA.

The solution is to ban private transport but with the state of public transport and public transport operatives that's a wholly unrealistic proposition.